About this Show

Public Affairs

News News/Business.

NETWORK

DURATION
03:15:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 17 (141 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Mr. Rogers 39, Michigan 36, Us 21, Madam 20, Maryland 20, Florida 15, Georgia 15, America 14, United States 14, Illinois 13, Mr. Woodall 13, U.s. 12, Rogers 12, Mr. Langevin 11, China 11, Virginia 11, Mr. Ruppersberger 9, Mr. Schneider 9, Mr. Connolly 8, Mr. Schiff 6,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Public Affairs    News  News/Business.  

    April 17, 2013
    1:00 - 4:15pm EDT  

1:00pm
classified cyberintelligence information with the private sector. while private companies while private companies have taken considerable action to protect their networks, they have limited information and can only respond to known threats. cyberthreats evolve at the speefed technology and this measure helps the private sector protect against cyberattacks by providing companies with the latest cyberthreat information from the intelligence community which has timely classified information about destructive malware. this cyberthreat intelligence is the information that companies and the government need to protect and defend their networks. the so-called signatures are primarily made up of numerical
1:01pm
codes consisting of zeros and ones without any perm information attached. -- any personal information atammed. cispa is a result of cooperation between the community, companies and to a certain degree the white house as it pertains to many measures included in this legislation. during their efforts to improve the bill, they also maintain a dialogue with privacy advocates in an effort to strengthen civil liberties, protections and oversights. i had a personal note here for the reason that over a period of 10 years i served eight of those years on the intelligence committee. and the now chairman of the intelligence committee and ranking member were both junior members of the committee that i served on. they have risen to the position that they are in and have acted in an extremely responsible way
1:02pm
over a two-year period of time, trying to bring a measure as complicated as this one contemplating all of the factors i've identified and more, including the members of the committee. i would urge members of the house of representatives, many of them continue to have concerns not only about this particular legislation but about other intelligence matters and rightly so are they concerned, but let me remind them that they are members of a body that allows if they wish to go into the spaces of the intelligence committee and to be briefed by staff and members there on classified information upon appropriate undertakings, they, too, can gain the information and insight that's needed in order to make an intelligent determination when they are voting rather than come out here and criticize the people that do the hard work,
1:03pm
that get no benefits new york concerns from the members and yet cannot say all the things that are needed to say -- be said to the american public. the same holds for adam schiff and january schakowsky and others that i won't mention that i served on that committee with. these are conscientious people that spend more time than almost any member of congress on any matter that he or she are attending to and i have great respect for them. i don't agree with everything that either or all of them say but i know they put their heart and time both in the amendments that are offered as well as in his bill and the particulars being put forward to this body. as a result of this work, 19 improvens to enhance prifecy and protect americans have been adopted. chief among them, this cispa measure that requires the government to eliminate any personal information it
1:04pm
receives that is not necessary to understand the cyberthreat. it creates no new authorities for any agency and i cannot say that enough. it creates no new authorities for any agency. it gives companies the flexibility to choose which agency within the intelligence community they would like to work with or to protect the cybernetworks, it requires an annual review and report by the intelligence community's inspector general of the government's use of any information shared by the private sector and i would urge members when we increase the responsibilities of the inspector general that we also give the inspector general the resources in order to be able to do the necessary oversight that is required in this legislation. it includes something that i very much support and that is a five-year sunset provision.
1:05pm
i've supported other five-year sunset provisions in the intelligence community and would have prefered in this instance it be a three-year provision but the fact of the matter is, it's five, and we will learn an awful lot during that period of time and we will be back here dealing with this same subject at some point in the future. allowing for the appropriate sharing of cyberthreat information between the government and private sectors is key to protecting our nation from those who would do us harm. cispa balances the critical need to strengthen our cyberdefenses while protecting american's individual privacy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has reserved. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: it's my great pleasure to yield to one of those people on the intelligence committee the gentleman spoke of, the jell from texas, mr. conaway. the speaker pro tempore: the
1:06pm
gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. conway: i rise in strong -- mr. conaway: i rise in strong support of the rule. i also want to say to my colleague from florida, i agree with him as to why this bill is important. i'd like to speak about what this bill does not do. it does not create a government surveillance program or give the government authority to monitor private networks or communications like email and it is strictly voluntary. it does not create a mandate on the private sector that they participate in these activities, monitoring and surveillance, are excluded from being in this bill. whatever gets done has to fit within one of these four. one is cyberskirt, two is investigating and pross dueting cybersecurity crimes and four would be protecting my no, sir from physical and psychological
1:07pm
harm. whatever is done in this bill has to fit withen those categories. as speakers have said already, great work has been done in trying to protect the privacy and civil liberties all of us have. those who have grave concern that we have not fixed those, i would ask them to simply go review the contract they have with their internet service provider. they have ceded immense personal liberties and privacies to sign up with that internet service. as we look at what we're trying to do with this bill, i would argue they may have gone past that already. this bill does nothing like that no personal information can be shared. last mandate the government put many place that filters so as that data comes in at the speed of light, no one is reading it, it's machine to machine, personal information is scrubbed from that. there's reporting requirements for the system to put in place so if there are occasional
1:08pm
breaches that those breaches are reported on a timely basis to the committee, not at the end of an arbitrary committee but as soon as they can be reported. there's no ambiguity in this bill, it says what can be done and what cannot be done and outleans the consequences for breaking the lausm as we have -- let me also agree with my colleague from florida, it has a sunset provision, five years from now, future congresses will have to deal with this or it gos away. unlike many of our bills that simply duo on unless we do something, this has the protection of allowing those who disagree with it, there will be another beist this apple, and there will be things we learned in that five-year period. but this is critical for america. if this were a physical attack on the country, there would be no question that the federal government through its military would stand in the breach and protect the country. there are no less dangerous attacks conducted against infrastructure, banks, airlines, other things every
1:09pm
single day we are table help protect the private sector from and this bill goes a long way toward doing that i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill and i yield back. thank you for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm privileged to yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from colorado, my colleague on the rules ommittee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the secret is recognized. mr. polis: where to -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: where to begin. this is a critical issue for the country, getting the balance right between protecting american fra structure, our way of life, and yet this rule only allows one hour of debate in the house of representatives on this bill. some additional time for amendments, i might add that the amendments that were talked about in rules committee last night, the amendments that actually addressed some of the
1:10pm
deficiencies which i'll be getting into about this bill are not allowed under this rule. in fact, out of the 12 amendments allowed two of them are the same, the same amendment allowed twice. yet a number of other amendments are not even aloud to be debate or voted on here on the floor of the house. i hold in my hands many, many amendments brought forward by members of both parties and under this rule, were prevented from being debate or voted upon here on the floor of the house which is why i strongly encourage my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on the underlying bill in its present form. there's no disagreement that cybersecurity is a very real and important issue. threats come from criminal enterprises, they come from nation state, they come from corporations, they come from 16-year-olds. there's a variety of threats. to both the public and private sector. both here and abroad.
1:11pm
the question is, what's the solution? one of the first fallacies with the premise of this bill, at the 20,000 foot level is who helps who? frankly it is the government that needs to learn and the private sector that leads the way. i have talked to number of technology executives, having been a technology executive before i got here, and they are frequently ahead they have government because every day they're fighting hacking attempts and they're on the front livense cybersecurity. now it's not about whether they want free help, who wouldn't want free help? should we as taxpayers subsidize those who have not invested in their own cybersecurity? should this be a bailout of companies with poor cybersecurity? but the truth of the matter is moat of -- most of the learning that needs to occur is from the private sector to the government. in fact, we're taking some of those steps. the government and n.s.a. are using private contractors who are on the forefront of this
1:12pm
issue every day. that's more the direction we need to go. the notion that somehow the government would be of assistance to companies is laughable to many of the technology executives i talk to. nor would they expect to call the government for help when they themselveses are so far ahead. but look, to the extent we want to get the government involved with information and with the private sector here, we need to be very careful how this information is used, not just from a civil liberties perspective which we'll be talking about but because this is an economic issue a confidence somebody. the internet has been a tremendous engine of innovation and economic growth. and we should be concerned for the internet coe system, concerned for the millions of jobs, concerned for the great value that's been create, the benefits to consumers around the country, the way it's touched our live in so many ways. what's fundamentally flawed in its approach is it trumps privacy agreements in terms of
1:13pm
use that internet companies enter with their users. so you could sign up for a service on the internet, it could save, we will not share this information with the government unless required by law, in terms of use, and frequently there are statements analogous to that and the many you click send and complete it if this bill were law, the company you gave that information to could then turn around in violation of their own terms of use and provide all the information to the government. now, the limitations on what the government could do with that information are completely inadequate. there is a section of the bill on page 10 and 11 that deals with those limitations. first it says that information can be used for cybersecurity purposes. ok, that's the murp of the bill, investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes. that's ok. then it goes far afield into pretty much everything. it talks about bodily harm,
1:14pm
danger of death, when we look at bodily harm and bodily njury that includes things under u.s.c. 1365, can cuts abrasions, bruises, disfigurements, including mental pain. this is anything the government wants to use the information for. painer that can cause paper cuts. the government can collect who is buying paper who is buying scissors who is playing football who is organizing gun shows who is a tea party enthusiast. can i have an additional minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. polis: and there are no protections with regard to what is done with that information. there are a numb of improvements that could make this bill viable and these are not aloud under this rule. my colleague, mr. schiff, has put forward and amendment that would have simply required
1:15pm
reasonable pro pre-cautions take ton ensure privatity was protected. that would be a strong step forward. real limitations about tie the use of this information to cybersecurity would be an important step forward with this bill. what's a danger, yes, civil liberties, but the danger is the confidence in the internet ecosystem that's driven our economic growth over the last decade. there will be great harm if that confidence is shaken, great harm if people know that the information that they provide and sign up for can immediately be turned over to a government agency and indeed a secretive government agency with no recourse and complete exemption from any liability for the company that's done it. it's been noted that this program is voluntary. it may be voluntary for the corporations, not voluntary for the individual or the sit sthevpbs country who provide that information. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. i know his concerns are heart
1:16pm
felt and he shared those last night in the rules committee. the gentleman has a great deal of experience in this industry. as heart felt as his concerns are i know his concerns to national security if we fail to come together and address this issue. i'd like to be able to say, mr. speaker, when we pass this bill today it's going directly to the president's desk for signature. i don't believe that to be true. i think it's a long process between now and getting to the president's desk for signature. i know the gentleman will be raising these concerns throughout that process. but i just cannot emphasize enough, mr. speaker, the dangers to the liberties of the american people of failing to begin this process today. very proud we're offering -- allowing 12 amendments today to work through the concerns that the gentleman has, among others, but the importance of beginning this process today cannot be overstated.
1:17pm
i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased at this time to yield three men's to the gentleman from california, a distinguished member of the intelligence committee, mr. schiff, and my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman for yielding and, mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule. at the outset, let me say that the cyber threat is real and its damage already devastating and i very much appreciate the work that the chairman and the ranking member has done on this bill and i appreciate we are making and continuing to make improvements. as the bill stands, the bill does not do enough to provide the private information of americans. most importantly, i'm disappointed that the proposed rule does not allow an amendment that i offered with ms. schakowsky, ms. eshoo, mr. holt and mr. thompson of mississippi. my amendment would fix an issue specifically cited by the white
1:18pm
house in its statement of administration policy in explaining why the president's advisors would recommend a veto of this without important change. it would require the companies that share cyberthreat information either with the government or with another private company to make reasonable efforts to remove personally identifiable information. as the administration stated in its veto message or veto threat, the administration remains concerned that the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities. citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable and not granted immunity for failing to safeguard personal information adequately. the requirement of government -alone efforts to safeguard or minimize personal information
1:19pm
is simply not enough. this is most apparent when, under the immunized conduct in the bill, private entities can share information with each other without ever going through the government, in those circumstances, how account government minimize what it never possesses? so government minute anyization alone is -- minimumization alone is not enough. we asked to make sure when they remove personal information that they can do so in real time through automated processes. the witnesses who testified before the intelligence community said that often the private parties are in the best position to eamon mize the data. the data. anomoize mr. speaker, without an amendment to ensure that companies remove private information when they can do so, when they can do so through
1:20pm
reasonable efforts, i cannot support the underlying bill. i believe that members of both parties who support this change deserve the chance to vote on it. and i suspect that because that issue would have gathered broad support, it is not being brought up for a vote here on the floor and that is very disappointing. accordingly, i urge a no vote on the rule and yield back. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself 60 seconds to say i agree with my friend, that the private sector is often in the best position to get the work done that we're talking about in this bill. i would refer my colleagues, mr. speaker, to the intelligence committee's website. it's tedges.house.gov, where you can see a long list -- it's intelligence.house.gov, where you can see the long list of supporting actors, a long list of those in the private sector
1:21pm
responsible for the security of their firms of the information that americans have entrusted to them asking this body to move forward with this bill today. there's no question, mr. speaker, when you're dealing with something of the magnitude of the national security threats posed by cyberwarfare and the privacy protections, that everyone in this body is committed to, that you're going to end up with conscientious men and women on both sides of this issue. it is important to note that the private sector, which is being bombarded each and every day with threats from nation state actors overseas is asking, pleading with this body to move forward with this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, would you be kind enough to tell both sides how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has 17 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: with that, mr. speaker, in an effort to respond to my colleague and friend from georgia, i ask an
1:22pm
additional minute be given to mr. schiff at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman for yielding the additional time just to respond to my colleague. i'd be interested to know if there's anything you can point to in those 17 amendments that governs or requires the private sector when it shares information with other private sector entities to remove personally identifiable information, because under the bill, the only minimumization hat's being required is by the government. so this is the big hole and while there are many private sector companies that may support the bill because it gives them broad immunity without broad responsibility, that doesn't mean it's good policy. particularly when private companies have said they would make reasonable efforts, they're willing to do it, they can do it, they have the capacity to do it, we're just not asking them to do it. we're requiring them to do it, and we're giving something of
1:23pm
great value to them and that is we're giving them broad immunity. so i think with that immunity ought to come some responsibility, and it shouldn't be too much to ask that that responsibility take the form of a reasonable effort, not a herculean one, not an impossible one, but a reasonable effort to ensure that the americans' privacy interests are observed and they take out that information when they can. i yield back. i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, again, for purposes of clarity, i yield an additional minute to my colleague from colorado, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i have three documents to submit to the record, without objection, one from the former representative bob barr, one of administrative policy. those who oppose the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: i have a letter from several technology companies and others who oppose the bill i'd like to submit to the record. developments over the last year
1:24pm
makes this approach even more questionable, end quothe. former representative bob barr, congress takes the civil liberties created by this bill just as seriously as it takes cyberthreats the bill purports to address, end quote. mr. speaker, we should not hurt the internet to save the internet, and this bill in its current form leaves the language wide open with the turn to potential abuse. when we talk about bodily harm, that includes dog bites. essentially anything is included in this information without limitation with regard to how the government can use it. this is a back door attack on the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seize your -- seizures. we have processees on how information can and cannot be used. this is the biggest government takeover of personal information that i've seen during my time in congress. i believe it harms what it purports to protect. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
1:25pm
the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself 60 seconds, again, to say to my friend from colorado, i know his concerns are heart felt, but he knows as i do there's nothing we can do in statute here today that would trump any of our civil liberties that are protected under the constitution of the united states of america. the constitution of the united states of america trumps all. what we're doing here today, mr. speaker, is responding to a very serious national security threat, and we're doing so in a way that can give americans great comfort that their civil liberties are every bit protected today as they were yesterday. in fact, mr. speaker, in these nation states are hacking into these accounts and accessing our personal information every single day, i would tell you we will actually have our privacy more protected in the presence of a secure internet than we do today as nation states are frequently eroding our cybersecurity border here in the united states of america. with that i reserve the balance
1:26pm
of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'd advise my friend from georgia that i'm the last speaker if he's prepared to close, i'm prepared to close. mr. woodall: i thank my friend. i have one more speaker remaining. at this time -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from florida reserves? mr. hastings: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, it's my great pleasure to yield as much time as he may consume to the chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman, my dear friend, mr. woodall from georgia, not only for managing this rule but for his time that he's invested not into just this issue but the issues that come before the rules committee, and i want to thank him for his service. i also want to thank, if i can, the gentleman, mr. hastings from georgia -- from florida. welcome back to the committee after a couple days of being out with surgery and for the vigorous hearing that we had
1:27pm
yesterday at the rules committee. mr. speaker, we had an opportunity to have mr. ruppersberger, the leader for the democrats from the intelligence committee as well as mike rogers from michigan, the chairman of the committee, and both came and vigorously talked about the things which re aimed at our country, cyberthreats, nation states -- nations such as china and others who are trying -- north korea -- who are trying to invade our internet here in the united states and to steal not only information and data but also thoughts, ideas and money. and so it gave us an opportunity yesterday to have a great hearing, one which was full of detail, one which really offered intrigue by our members and a lot of thought process by all those who came before the committee.
1:28pm
however, i would like to advise, if i can, following the closing statements on the rule before us, the gentleman, mr. woodall, will be offering an amendment to the rule that seeks to address concerns with the role of civilian federal agencies in receiving the cyberinformation that would be transmitted from the private sector that is included in the underlying bill. this amendment was in negotiation yesterday and submitted for consideration for the rules committee but the final compromise was not ready at the time the committee finished its work product yesterday evening. so negotiations continued all last night, through this morning, until today and on a bipartisan basis, these negotiations have given us what i consider to be a good amendment with good merits and should be considered under this rule. the amendment has been vetted thoroughly by the five committees which share
1:29pm
jurisdiction in this matter, including ranking members thompson and ruppersberger. if -- and by the way, my colleague, the ranking member of the rules committee, ms. slaughter. if the rule is amended, the language would be offered by mr. mccaul, the chairman of the house committee on homeland security. and i'm confident that this work product and the work which we're bringing to this floor will continue to support, not just the rule, but the legislation that would be before the -- before this house tomorrow by the rules committee. so i believe that this helps not just the underlying bill but really is a testament to the work on a bipartisan basis among other committees, among a lot of people who had a chance to look at, not just jurisdictional issues, but the actual substance of trying to make protecting this country, its assets and its people a
1:30pm
reality. now, in law that the united states house of representatives will fully debate tomorrow vote on and support. part of the role of the rules committee throughout this process has been to make sure that the final product that came to the floor of the house of representatives was well-vetted, received the attention that was necessary and perhaps more importantly was the leading edge and lastly the most important thing is we know what we've agreed to. we know what we agreed to to where we're very clear of what the law is and the expectations of that performance. i appreciate the gentleman yielding time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the distinguished chairman of the rules committee, my good friend, mr. sessions, for his explanation of the measure going forward. i certainly do not anticipate that my side will oppose the
1:31pm
measure as offered. in addition, thereto, i will highlight what he did eloquently point out and that is the bipartisan effort that has been put into this including all of the negotiations leading up to now what will be the mccaul amendment offered by mr. woodall. cispa provides the government and private sector with the tools they need to secure our networks and prevent future cyberattacks. while respecting the privacy of individuals. in bringing private companies and trade groups to the table, as well as taking into consideration the concerns expressed by civil liberties organizations, cispa has been improved to better address the growing cybersecurity risk faced by the federal government and private sector and to provide greater oversight and
1:32pm
protect americans' privacy. we can take significant steps to reduce our vulnerability to cyberthreats today. i've had the honor and privilege of meeting many of our intelligence professionals when i served as a member of the intelligence committee and since that time and i can in the overstate how much i appreciate and am humbled by their service. furthermore i want to take this moment of prernl privilege to thank my good friends, chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger and to underscore one of the unnoticed and hardworking staff efforts and that would be the house intelligence committee staff for their hard work and dedication in helping to see this and other measures having to do with the intelligence of this committee to the house
1:33pm
floor as well as in cooperation with their colleagues and ours at the united states senate. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and yes on the underlying bill and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of me time. i thank my friend from florida for his service on the rules committee and his service on the intelligence committee. the work that goes on on the intelligence committee, mr. speaker is work that so many members of congress co-not involve themselves in. it goes on deep in the bowls of the cap -- bowels of the capitol complex, it's great security, all electronic devices left outside the door, they can discuss things within the four twhifles committee
1:34pm
that we're not allowed to discuss things. when they asked me to hand they will rule, i was concerned, because throughout this process of developing cispa, i've traveled down to that committee room time and time again in order to understand the threats that this nation is facing, to understand the challenges that this community of intelligence professionals is grappling with around the globe and i don't want to be the one who shares those stories here on the house floor by mistake. i don't envy the gentleman from florida having to balance being in that committee every single day, trying to protect the security of every single citizen and not being able to come out of that committee room and share with the, not just your colleagues here in the house but your constituents back home why it is you're doing the things that you do. can you imagine, mr. speaker, what would have happened in world war ii if we had to keep the bomb of pearl harbor a secret, it's a secret, nobody knows, what do you think the
1:35pm
support would have been for taking affirmative action in world war ii? it would have been hard to generate that support. i would have voted no. there are things going on in this nation and this world today, mr. speaker, that our intelligence committee grapples with, that our intelligence professionals grapple with, things that are frightening and things that threaten the liberty of this cupry and the economic security of this country. now i don't want to be a fear mongering mr. speaker. what i love about this country is, no matter what the challenge is, we are great enough collectively to rise to meet it. in this case, we happen to need to rise to meet it in a subject matter that is near and dear to the heart of every american which is my internet privacy. i care a lot about my internet privacy, mr. speaker. i've got the vpn system set up, i change my password every 10 days to make sure nobody is
1:36pm
making any progress toward hacking my system. i'll occasionally go on the internet and use one of those anonmiser to make muir my i.p. , ress isn't being tracked perhaps i'm trying to get a bill done, so people can't learn that i'm getting bills done. we have tools available to us. but you know who i can't outsmart? perhaps i can outsmart my next door neighbor who wants to piggyback on my wi-fi system, perhaps i can outsmart the guy at the hoe tole trying to get any information there perhaps i can outsmart the house of representatives, but what i can't outsmart is the team of cyberwarriors gathered by nation states around the globe who are hacking my information and your information every single day. stealing our intellectual property, steeling -- stealing
1:37pm
our military technology, threatening the privacies that we've talked so much about here on the floor today. i'm very glad, mr. speaker, as you page through this bill you will find line after line after line aimed at protecting your and my privacy. i think we do a good job of finding that balance. we even offer amendments on the floor to do even better. but without security at the internet border, i have no protection of my privacy. because those agents of the state, china, north korea, and beyond, are accessing that information. mr. speaker, it's been 18 months that we've been working to craft that balance of privacy and security. we'll continue to work on that throughout 12 amendments here today. i urge my colleagues, look
1:38pm
through this resolution, look through h.r. 624 to see the efforts that have gone into crafting this bipartisan piece of legislation and look at those 12 amendments. look at those 12 amendments we'll have an opportunity to vote on the next two days, to make this bill even better. but the time for delay, mr. speaker, has passed us. and the cost of delay is most certainly measured in dollars and i fear it is measured in lives. let's move forward with this bill today, mr. speaker. i urge strong support for the rule and i urge strong support after the debate of these 12 amendments on the underlying legislation. mr. speaker, at this time, i offer amendment ott resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by
1:39pm
mr. woodall of georgia, at the end of the resolution, add the following, section 2, notwithstanding any other provision of thisres. rution, the amendment specified in section three shall be in order as though printed as the last amendment in house report 113-41 if offered by representative mccaul of texas or his designee. that amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divide and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. section 3, the amendment riffered to in section 2 is as followed. after section 1, insert the following new section and renumber subsequent sections accordingly. section 2, federal government coordination with respect to cybersecurity. a, coordinated activities, the federal government shall conduct cybersecurity activities to provide shared situational awareness that enables integrated operational actions to protect, mitigate, respond to and recover from cyberince dens.
1:40pm
b, coordinated information sharing, one, designation of coordinating entity for cyberthreat information. the president shall designate any entity within the department of homeland security as the civilian federal entity to receive cyberthreat information that is shared by a cybersecurity provider or protected entity in accordance with section 1104b with the national security act of 1947 as added by section 3a of this act except as provided by paragraph 2 and subject to the procedures established under paragraph 4. two, designation of a coordinating entity for cybersecurity crimes, the president shall designate an entity within the department of justice as the civilian federal entity to receive the cyberthreat information related to cybersecurity crimes that is shared by a cybersecurity provider or self-protected entity in accordance with section 1104b of the national
1:41pm
security act of 1947 as aed by section 3 of this act subject to the procedures under paragraph 4. three, share big coordinated entities. the enltities designated under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall share cyberthreat information shared with such entities in accordance with section 1104b of the national security act of 1947 as added by section 3a of this act, consistent with the procedures established under paragraphs four and five. four, procedures, each department or agency of the federal government receiving cyberthreat information shared in accordance with section 1104b of the national security act of 1947 as added by section 3a of this act, shall establish procedures to, a, ensure that cyberthreat information shared with departments or agent sthoifs federal government in
1:42pm
accordance with such section 1104b is also shared with appropriate departments and agencies of the federal government with a national security mission in realtime. b, ensure the distribution to other departments and agent sthoifs federal government of cyberthreat information in realtime, and c, facilitate information sharing, interaction and collaboration among and between the federal government, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and cybersecurity providers and self-protected entities. five, privacy and civil liberties, a, policies and procedures, the secretary of homeland security, the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense shall jointly establish and periodically review policies and procedures governing the receipt, retention, use and disclosure of nonpublicly available cyberthreat information shared with the federal government in accordance with section 1104b
1:43pm
of the national security act of 1947 as added by section 3a of this act. such policies and procedures shall, consistent with the need to protect systems and networks from cyberthreats and mitigate cyberthreats in a timely manner, one, minimize the impact on privacy and civil liberties, two, reasonably limit the receipt, retention, use and disclosure of cyberthreat information associated with specific persons that is not necessary to protect systems or networks from cyberthreats or mitigate cyberthreats in a timely manner. three, include requirements to safeguard nonpublicly available cyberthreat information that may be used to identify specific persons from unauthorized access or acquisition. four, protect the confidentiality of cyberthreat information associated with specific persons to the
1:44pm
greatest extent practicable and five, not delay or impede the flow of cyberthreat information necessary to defend against or mitigate a cyberthreat. bmbing, submission to congress. the secretary of homeland security, the attorney general, the director of national intelligence, and the secretary of defense shall consistent with the need to protect sors and methods jointly submit to congress the policies and procedures required under subparagraph a and any updates to such policies and procedures. c, implementation. the head of each department or agency of the federal government receiving cyberthreat information shared with the federal government under section 1104b shall, one, implement the policies and procedures established under subparagraph a and two, promptly notify the secretary of homeland security, the attorney general, the director of national intelligence, the
1:45pm
secretary of defense and the appropriate congressional committees of any significant violations of such poll icies and procedures. d, oversight -- of such policies and procedures. d, oversight. the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense shall jointly establish a program to monitor and oversee compliance with the policies and proceduresest tablied under subparagraph a. six, information sharing relationships, nothing in this section shall be construed to, a, alter existing agreements or prohibit new agreements with respect to the sharing of cyberthreat information between the department of defense and an ebtity that is part of the defense industrial base. b, alter existing information sharing relationships between a cybersecurity provider, protected entity or self-protected entity and federal government. c, prohibit the sharing of
1:46pm
cyberthreat information directly with the department or agency of the federal government for criminal investigative purposes related to crimes described in section 1104c-1 of the national security act of 1947 as added by section 3a of this act or d, alter existing agreements or prohibit new agreements with respect to the sharing of cyberthreat information between the department of treasury and an entity that is part of the financial services sector. seven, technical assistance, a, discussions and assistance, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any department or agent sthoif federal government from engaging in formal or informal technical discussion regarding cyberthreat information with a cybersecurity provider or self-protected entity or from providing technical assistance to address vulnerabilities or mitigate threats at the request of such a provider or such an ntity.
1:47pm
b, coordination. anything referred to in subparagraph a shall coordinate such activity with an entity of the department of homeland security designated under paragraph 1 and share all significant information resulting from such activity with such entity and all other appropriate departments and agencies of the federal government. c, sharing by designated entity. consistent with the policies and procedures established under paragraph 5, the entity of the department of homeland security designated under paragraph 1 shall share all appropriate departments and agencies of the federal government all significant information resulting from, one, formal or informal technical discussions between such entity of the department of homeland security and a cybersecurity provider or self-protected entity about cyberthreat information or,
1:48pm
two, any technical assistance such entity of the department of homeland security provides to such cybersecurity provider or such self-protected entity to address vulnerabilities or mitigate threats. c, reports on information sharing. one, inspector general of the department of homeland security report, the inspector general of the department of homeland security, in consultation of the inspector general of the department of justice, the inspector general of the department of defense and the privacy and civil liberties oversight board should annually submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report containing a review of the use of information shared with the federal government under subsection b of section 1104 of the national security act of 1947 as added by section 3-a of this act including, a, a
1:49pm
review of the use by the federal government of such information for a purpose other than a cybersecurity purpose. b, a review of the type of information shared with the federal government under such subsection. c, a review of the actions taken by the federal government based on such information. d, appropriate metrics to determine the impact of the sharing of such information with the federal government on privacy and civil liberties, if any. e, a list of the departments or agencies receiving such information. f, a review of the sharing of such information within the federal government to identify an appropriate stovepiping of shared information. and, g, any recommendations of the inspector general of the department of homeland security for improvements or modifications to the authorities under subsection. two, privacy and civil
1:50pm
liberties officers report. the officer for civil rights and civil liberties of the department of homeland security in consultation with the civil rights and civil liberties oversight board, the senior privacy and civil liberties officer such of each department or agency of the federal government that receives cyberthreat information shared with the federal government under such subsection, b, shall annually and jointly submit to congress a report assessing the privacy and civil liberties' impact of the activities conducted by the federal government under subsection 1104. such report shall include any recommendations that civil liberties protection officer and chief privacy and civil liberties officer consider appropriate to minimize or mitigate the privacy and civil liberties' impact of the sharing of cyberthreat information under such section
1:51pm
1104. three, form, each form required under paragraph 1 or 2 shall be submitted and on classified form but may include a classified annex. d, definitions. in this section, one, appropriate congressional committees. the term appropriate congressional committees means, a, the committee on homeland security, the committee on the judiciary, the permanent select committee on intelligence and the committee on armed services of the house of representatives and, b, the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs, the committee on the judiciary, the select committee on intelligence and the committee on armed services of the senate. two, cyberthreat information. cyberthreat intelligence, cybersecurity crimes, cybersecurity provider, cybersecurity purpose and self-protected entity. the term cyberthreat information, cyberthreat
1:52pm
intelligence, cybersecurity crimes, cybersecurity provider, cybersecurity purpose and self-protected entity have the meaning given those terms in section 1104 of the national security act of 1947 as added by section 3-a of this act. three, intelligence community. the term intelligence community has the meaning given the term -- has the meaning given the term in section 34 of the national security act of 1947, 50, united states code, 401-a-4. four, shared situational awareness. the term shared situational awareness means an environment where cyberthreat information is shared in real time between all designate the federal cyberoperations centers to provide actionable information about all known cyberthreats. page 5, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 6,
1:53pm
line 7. page 7, beginning on line 17, strike by the department or agency of the federal government receiving such cyberthreat information. page 13, strike line 13 and all that follows through page 15, line 23. page 17, strike line 15 and all that follows through page 19, line 19. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the amendment and on the resolution. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on adoption of the resolution, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.
1:54pm
members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
1:55pm
1:56pm
1:57pm
1:58pm
1:59pm
2:00pm
2:01pm
2:02pm
2:03pm
2:04pm
2:05pm
2:06pm
2:07pm
2:08pm
2:09pm
2:10pm
2:11pm
2:12pm
2:13pm
2:14pm
2:15pm
2:16pm
2:17pm
2:18pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 227, and the nays are 192. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, of the following members on the part of the house to the board of visitors to the united states coast guard academy.
2:19pm
the clerk: mr. coble of north carolina and mr. courtney of connecticut.
2:20pm
2:21pm
the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the entleman from michigan rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. rogers: mr. speaker,
2:22pm
pursuant to the rule, i call up h.r. 624, the cyberintelligence sharing and protection act. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a unanimous consent request for general leave? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on . e bill, h.r. 624 the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 164 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 624. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, to preside over he committee of the whole.
2:23pm
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 624 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the sharing of certain cyberthreat intelligence and cyberthreat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is credit the first time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. ruppersberger, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chairman. i recognize myself myself. the chair: the gentleman. -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i want to thank the
2:24pm
ranking member, republican and democratic members of the intelligence committee, for two hours of long hours and negotiated efforts to reach the point where we are. i want to back up and tell you how we got to where we are today. we sat down some two years ago when the ranking member and i assumed the leadership of the intelligence committee and we looked at the one threat that we know existed but we were not prepared to handle as americans, both the private sector and the government, and we knew that we had to do something at this new and growing and misunderstood cyberthreat and what it was doing to our intellectual property across the country, what it was doing to the freedom and open internet that we so enjoy and are increasingly dependent on and our commercial value of our growing economy. and it was at risk. the private sector was at risk. the confidence of the american people, because people were stealing their identities,
2:25pm
their accounts, their intellectual property and subsequent to that, their jobs, began to question the value of getting on the internet and using it for commercial purposes. their trust in the free and open internet the way we've embraced it in the internet really was at risk. how do we solve that problem? we knew that nation states were investing millions and billions of dollars to generate cyberwarriors that could go in and crack your computer network. i don't care if you had intellectual property, those blueprints that made your business successful or maybe it was your bank account or your ability to have a transaction. if they could interrupt that they could do great harm to the economy and to the united states. and we saw nation states like russia and china and now iran and north korea and others developing military-style attack to actually do harm to the u.s. economy, to hurt the very men and women who get up
2:26pm
every day and play by the rule and think that the internet would be a safe place for them to interact when it comes to commerce. we want that to continue, so we sat down and we talked to industry folks, people who are in the business, high-tech industry folks from silicon valley, financial services folks from new york city, manufacturers from across the midwest who were losing intellectual property to theft from nation states like china. we talked to the executive branch. and over the last two years, some 19 adjustments to this bill on privacy. we believe this. this bill will not work if americans don't have confidence that it will protect your privacy and civil liberties while allowing one very simple thing to happen, cyberthreat material, that malware that goes on your computer and does bad things. it allows somebody else to take over your computer to attack a bank. it allows them to go on your
2:27pm
computer and steal your personally identity fivel information and steal your most valuable company secrets that keep you alive and build great products here in the united states. could we allow the government to share what they know, what the private sector, and allow the private sector share when it comes to just that cyberthreat, zeros and ones in a pattern that equates to malicious code, traveling at hundreds of millions of times a second, the speed of light, can we share that in a way to stop them from getting in and stealing your private information? and the good news is, the answer is yes, we can do this. we can protect privacy and civil liberties and we can allow this sharing arrangement, not of your identity, not of your personal identity fivel information. -- identifiable information. from machine to machine, from
2:28pm
your internet service provider before it ever gets in your network, they bounce out the nastiest stuff that's in there that's going to take over your computer, steal your money, steal your identifiable information, steal your secrets and it will be kicked out. it says, something looks bad about that. can the government take a look at that and say, you know what, it's a chinese eye tack, it's an iranian attack, we need to defend our networks. it's really that simple. today what you see is a collaborative effort. this isn't a bill by dutch ruppersberger and mike rogers and this is the only way it has to be. we've taken suggestions from privacy to the executive branch to industry to other trade associations, and this is the bill that mutually all of those people representing, tens of millions of employees around this country said this is the way you do this and protect the free and open internet and you
2:29pm
protect civil liberties and you finally raise that big red sign that tells people like china and iran and russia, stop, we're going to prevent you from stealing america's prosperity. i've heard a lot of debate earlier on the rule. i've heard a lot of misinformation, people who don't like it for whatever reason. maybe it's conviction. maybe it's politics. maybe it's political theater. i have a feeling there's a little bit of all of that when they talk about this bill. this bill does none of the things i heard talked about in the rule, that it's an exchange of information that they've never seen with the government. this is not a surveillance bill. it does not allow the national security agencies or the department of defense, any of our military organizations to monitor our domestic networks. it does not allow that to happen. we would not allow that to happen. so some notion that that's happening is just wrong. some of the folks who are pretending otherwise know it's
2:30pm
wrong. this is important. you know, the iranians, by public report, are laughing at our shores, looking for weaknesses in our financial institutions. and they're not doing it for benevolence. they're doing it to try to create chaos in our markets here at home. . this is today, it's happening today. the average credit card in your purse, madam chair, will be hit 300,000 times today about bad actors trying to get in and steal your personal information, all those card holders' information, and use it to commit a crime. today hundreds of millions of times across this great country companies will be besieged by attacks trying to overwhelm their systems and shut them down and don't allow commerce to happen to people trying to get in their networks and steal something of value. and this bill gives that right
2:31pm
balance between our privacy, civil liberties, and stopping bad guys in their tracks from ruining what is 1/6 of the u.s. economy. it's that important and it's important we get at it today. we must do more to improve our cybersecurity. and this bill is that vital first step toward that goal. our intelligence agency is collecting important information overseas about advanced foreign cyberthreats that could dramatically assist the private sector. that information in the intelligence community is unique value added when it comes to our cybersecurity. unfortunately, we are not getting the full value of those intelligence insights. as i said, the intelligence community is not monitoring the internet. they don't know what's happening on the domestic internet. so when there is a nasty piece of source code or malicious source code on -- attacking a private sector, the only way we are going to know that is if we, and these folks are victims of crimes by the way, if we allow them in a classified environment
2:32pm
to share malicious source codes, zeros and ones in the right pattern with the government and say hey, i am the victim of a crime, here's what it looks like, can you help? the government needs to be able to share this threat intelligence so that the private sector can protect its own networks. the government's going to reciprocate. our intelligence service go overseas, they come back and protect the government networks. the problem is because of laws and policies and procedures we can't share that with the private sector so they can protect their own networks. wouldn't it be great if they know what's coming? if you know what you are looking for, you can stop it. that's really what we are talking about doing here, madam chair. we must also modernize the law to give the private sector clear authority to share information within the private sector. as well as the government on a voluntary anonymous basis. voluntary. if you believe in the free and open internet and you look at all the bills that have been introduced, there is a chomping at the bit in this town to go
2:33pm
out and try to put their mitts on the internet. they want to get in there and start regulating and standards and setting up procedures. they want to get in from business to business communication, they want the government to be at every corner of the internet. i reject that wholly. it's the wrong approach. it will not work. it will bring the internet to a halt. this is the only bill, the only bill that doesn't have new mandates, new authorizations for any government involvement in the internet. it does something very simple, i'm going to repeat it a lot today, madam chair. it allows the government to share zeros and ones in the right pattern with the private sector, and zeros and ones from the private sector when they no it's malicious to share it with the government can you help me? that's what this bill does. we have a long list of privacy protections and restrictions to make sure that that's all that this bill does. the bill achieves all of these
2:34pm
important goals that i just walked through, and it will empower the private sector which already does significant work to protect scomputer networks to do more. the bill allows the government to share cyberthreat intelligence more widely with companies and in a usable form so they can help prevent state-sponsored cyberspies from stealing american trade secrets. it also provides clear, positive authority to allow companies to share cyberthreat information with others in the private sector. it also provides authority to allow those companies to share threat information on a purely voluntary and anonymous basis with the government. meaning no personal identifying information. this bill would not require additional federal spending. it will not require the creation of a vast new government bureaucracy. it will not impose any federal regulations or unfunded mandates on the private sector. to the contrary, it will be a critical, bipartisan, first step toward enabling america's
2:35pm
private sector to better defend itself from the advanced state sponsored cyberthreats in which we live in today. very proud of the open and transparent process that produced this bill. we had a great conversation over the last two years with a broad range of private sector companies, trade groups, prifecy, and civil liberties advocates and the executive branch. i appreciate all the constructive input we have received from the process. this bill has revised -- has been revised every step of the way in this process, and all of that has been based on discussions with all the groups i just mentioned. i just want to cover some of the privacy protections we added. the bill prohibits the government from requiring private sector entities to provide information to the government. there is nothing in here that has any requirement that private sector must share cyberthreat information. if they don't think it's in their best interest to stop that cybercrime, they don't have to say a word. if they do, they are allowed to
2:36pm
share just that cyberthreat information with the right agencies in real time. again, this is machine to machine, so that they can deal with the international measure of that threat. it encourages the private sector to minimize the information, it voluntarily shares with others, including the government. in addition, the bill requires an annual independent inspector general audit and report to congress of all voluntary information sharing with the government. that's another player of oversight. we have built multiple players of oversight into this bill so that we can gain the confidence of the public in its purpose, intent, and success. the bill is significantly limits the federal government's use of information voluntarily provided by the private sector. including a restriction on the government's ability to search that data. very important. the bill also enforces the restrictions on the government by leveling penalties against the government through federal court lawsuits for any
2:37pm
violations of those restrictions. again, another layer of oversight. during the markup we made progress as well between the ranking member and the members on the committee negotiating and working out what changes we can make to, again, improve the confidence that people have in this bill. we have improved this bill every step of the way for the last two years. and the markup is no different. our markup, which voted the bill out of committee on a strong 18-2 vote, we adopted five important amendments to further strengthen the bill's protections and safeguards. we adopted an amendment by mr. langevin that made it clear that the bill contained no new authority to allow companies to hack back in the networks and other companies. certainly wasn't intended in the legislation. i thought it was a well intended amendment, and the last thing we want to do is unleash digital vigilantism across the country and what that might do to our ability to continue to continue to rely on the internet as an
2:38pm
engine of commerce. we put in place the private sector use restriction that limits companies' use of information it receives to only cybersecurity purposes. mr. heck and mr. hines worked diligently on this amendment to improve the bill and make it very clear that this is just about cybersecurity and cybersecurity purposes. the bill previously gave the government authorization to create procedures to protect privacy and civil liberties, and prevent the government's retention of personal information not necessary to understand the cyberthreat. last week amendment makes those procedures mandatory. that was mr. hines and we agreed that was the right place to put the burden to make sure there was no personal ible -- identifiable information that was not necessary to determine the nature of the attack. we also struck the bill's authorized government, quote, national security use of information received in the private sector. it provided the government flexibility in the future to address advanced foreign
2:39pm
cybersecurity threat. in conversations with the government, national security lawyers, and recent months they assured us that this flexibility wouldn't be required in the near future. in light of that and given the widespread misunderstanding this language was generating, we thought it was prudent to take it out and ms. sewell from alabama offered that amendment and worked with the committee to make sure it was adopted. we also added additional oversight in the already very strong oversight structure in the bill to monitor the government's receipt and use of cyberthreat information voluntarily provided by the private sector. we added roles for the privacy and civil liberties board and the individual agency privacy officers to provide additional oversight of the government's use of information received from the private sector under this bill. i'm also very proud to co-sponsor an amendment today with mr. mccaul and mr. thompson of mississippi, mr. ruppersberger, myself that would put a civilian face on the
2:40pm
privacy sector cyberinformation sharing with this government. it was a concern by many. it was something we had long debates and conversations on and i think we came to an agreement that will at least end that debate. it puts the appropriate civilian face so that, again, people can have confidence in the intention of this bill and what it will do to protect cybersecurity on networks, or allow private sector to protect their own networks and protect civil liberties of americans. other elements of the government such as intelligence community receive the information they need to play their important roles, with you only after it has been minimized and screen -- but only after it has been minimized and screened by an entity like the d.h.s. or f.b.i. this bill already contains several levels of strong protections to n sure it improves cybersecurity without compromising our important civil liberties. but this bill will add a significant new privacy protection to that existing structure. again, madam chair, you can see the level of effort that we are
2:41pm
doing here to protect privacy and civil liberties and still have a workable bill. with states like china, russia, iran, and north korea from getting into your networks and stealing your property. we have yet to find a single u.s. company that opposes this bill. in fact, we have the enthusiastic support of nearly every sector of the economy. because they are under assault from foreign cyberattacks and they need our help. and they need it now. companies and industry groups from across the country, including intel, the chipmaker, i.b.m., the internet security alliance, u.s. chamber of commerce, business round table, tech america, technet, companies of the silicon valley. u.s. telecom, nuclear energy institute, national association of manufacturers just to name a few have sent the committee letters of support and the list is growing of people encouraged by the very light touch of the government, no new programs, no new authorizations, not a
2:42pm
surveillance bill. this is the only appropriate way to try to deal with this problem. by allowing the private sector to expand its own cyberdefense efforts and to employ classified information to protect systems and networks, this bill will harness private sector drive and innovation while also keeping the government out of the business of monitoring and guarding private sector networks. this important legislation would enable cyberthreat sharing and provide clear authority for the private sector to defend its own networks while providing strong protections for privacy and civil liberties. madam chair, with this great collaborative effort, with the effort facing this country, when you see this many republicans and democrats coming together, recognizing the threat, and crafting a bill that meets that very important standard, this is the bill we should all stand up and enthusiastically support. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. ruppersberger: madam chairwoman, i'd like to yield
2:43pm
maybe five seconds. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. gutierrez: unanimous consent, that my statement in support of the bill be entered into the record in support of the agreement that the committee brings forth. the chair: the gentleman's statement will be covered under general leave. mr. gutierrez: thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: chairman rogers and i are here today to discuss the cyberintelligence sharing and protection act. the bill simply allows the government to give cyberthreat intelligence to the private sector to protect its networks from cyberattacks. i don't want to repeat a lot of what the chairman said, the first thing i want to do is acknowledge the leadership of the chairman. three years ago the chairman and i when we took over the leadership of the house select intelligence committee, realized how serious a threat of cyberattacks were to our country, to our businesses, to our health, safety, and welfare.
2:44pm
we decided to pull together a group of representatives from different parts of thisish shy. we had the administration involved. we had the privacy groups involved including the aclu. we brought in the industry because we knew that we had to put together a bill that would pass the house, senate, and sign by the president. and so what we attempted to do was get input and then we put together a bill. by the way, the bill is only 27 pages. it's probably a record in this congress. and we did read the bill. now, what we attempted to do in this bill is to address a situation where now that the government cannot really communicate with the private sector to try to help protect our citizens, our businesses from cyberattacks. the reason for that is the 1947, there is a law that says that the intelligence community cannot communicate or pass
2:45pm
information to another entity that does not have clearance. basically what our bill does is to allow the sharing of information, which we can't do now, to the private sector. why is this important? this is something that is very important because most people don't understand this. we have 10 companies, the providers that control 80% of our network, 80% of our network. so in order for us to protect the united states of america from cyberattacks, we need to make sure that the government has a partnership with the private sector and that they can pass the threat information so that the government can help protect. as an example, if your house is being robbed, you call 911, and the police department comes. that's the same scenario that we're looking here, only it's a lot more sophisticated. again, as the chairman said, passing information, the zeros
2:46pm
and ones, to the government so we can work together to protect our network. now, why is this so important? and i think it's important that we get into some of the issues of threats. just recently, we understand and we know that the "washington post," "new york times," "wall street journal," was cyberattacked. they did this, especially china, to intimidate the sources within china. we had our u.s. banks, very serious for u.s. banks to be attacked and hacked. most of what our banks have are records and information. to be able to shut down a bank or to be able to manipulate or get privacy information could be very destructive to our banks, and yet this is being done and it's been done for a period of time. media reports have said that iran, a rogue country, that we know exports terrorism, we know what iran's beliefs are and yet reports have said that iran attacks saudi arabia oil
2:47pm
company, one of the largest companies in the world, iranco, and wiped out computers over the weekend. iran is not a sophisticated country when it comes to cyber, but they have the sophistication to be to knock out 30,000 computers and really shut their businesses down for a period of time. this is what is happening around the united states. cybercommand, whose job is to protect our computers, estimated within the last cup of years, the united states of america has had $400 billion of american trade secrets are being stolen from u.s. companies every year, costing these companies market share and jobs. that's probably the biggest theft in the history of the world, and yet we are still not in ability to help government working with business. you have secretary napolitano, director of f.b.i., you have the head of -- director of the
2:48pm
n.s.a., alexander, and all three have said, they said one of the biggest fears they have now are these attacks and that unless we have a sharing opportunity between government and between business they feel they cannot protect our country from these cyberattacks the way we should. it's important we act now on this bill. now, we can pass bills in the house all day long, but if the senate doesn't pass a bill and the president doesn't sign it, where are we? we were able to pass our bill last year in a bipartisan manner, and yet our bill went to the senate and it stalled. the bill didn't go anywhere. so chairman rogers and i started again, but what we said to each other and we discussed was that we need to address the issue of privacy because even though we felt strongly that our bill does protect privacy, we knew there was -- there were groups out there, especially
2:49pm
the privacy groups, felt there was not enough protection in our bill. we rolled up our sleeves. we listened to the issues raised by the privacy groups. the administration had issues with respect to private and we changed the bill. we made significant changes to our bill that dealt with privacy. we provided first there is a privacy and civil liberties oversight board and now that board must review our program. that's one area of oversight. we have in the intelligence community we have privacy officers in each department, in each area, and the privacy people have to look at the threat information. they must conduct a classified and unclassified review. that's the second oversight that was changed in the bill. an annual report must be sent to congress, and we have what we call the inspector general whose job it is to oversee the different agencies they represent and those are four areas of oversight just in the bill.
2:50pm
we also made sure that the we have five ned, lements this bill applies. the privacy agreements were concerned about the issue of national security being one of the elements in this bill. they thought it was too broad. so chairman rogers and i got together. we were able to get votes on both sides of the aisle and we were able to take a position that the national security issue is not in the bill any more. we feel national security is being covered by one of the elements in the bill that deals with the issue of protecting people's life, liberty and so we feel that we have covered the national security. one of the most important issues was the issue of minimumization. now, what is minimumization? most people don't know what it is. basically, minimumization is in information is passed and there is information that is private information that there needs to be some, an entity out there
2:51pm
that would take that information out so that information is not used. private information. so we now added to the bill that any of the zeros and ones that are passed and -- and that's what's happening, but if for some reason why somebody's personal information is passed and those zeros and ones are coming back and forth that we have 100% minimumization and the government will make sure that every single entity and all this information passed will be 100% minimized. if there's any personal information in there at all it will be knocked out. that's very significant and that gives a lot of coverage. as you can see, and this is important, you don't have security if you don't have privacy and that was one of the themes chairman rogers and i used in the beginning. if you don't have security, you don't have privacy. even though we thought our first bill had it, we felt there was a perception, we heard what was said and we made these changes. now, there's within other issue
2:52pm
out there that's important and i think it's extremely relevant and that's the issue of when the information is passed, we're attempting to protect our citizens, we're attempting to protect our businesses from these attacks and hopefully from a destructive attack like iran did to iranco and saudi arabia, there was a perception out there -- we, again, had to deal with perceptions -- and the perception was if this information that is being passed, the zeros and ones being passed back and forth, what is the point of entry? and we did not want the perception to be that the military in any way would be in charge or would be the entity that was overseeing this. we felt very strongly and we felt that it had to be civil, so chairman rogers and i, along with the chairman of the homeland security committee,
2:53pm
mccaul, and the ranking member thompson, we have an amendment here today which is very significant and i'm sure it will be very well-received by the privacy groups and the white house that what we're going to do that the bill will now say that the point of entry, when the information is passed, will be the department of homeland security. and that is very significant and we would hope that that would truly deal with the majority of these privacy issues. and we know that we have to move, we have to move quickly. we're here today to debate this bill and, again, chairman rogers, he's not listening but i'll say it anyhow, he's shown tremendous leadership. i say this and i say sometimes that i was a former investigative prosecutor, he was a former f.b.i. agent. all prosecutors have to listen to investigators. that was a joke. he's shown leadership.
2:54pm
we threw partisanship out the window. high. the stakes were the congress needs to act because we're standing in the way of our country. it reminds me of the situation, we know how serious hurricane sandy was, if in fact that you are a meteorologist and sandy is coming up the coast and you can't warn your constituents that sandy is coming, that's why we need to pass this bill today -- tomorrow, i believe. we're voting on the final bill tomorrow. we need to do it for the benefit of our country. i do want to end with this. you do not have security if you don't have privacy. we believe this bill, along with the amendments being introduced today, will affect that. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to recognize for three minutes the gentleman from nevada, former military officer, current military officer and great member of the intelligence committee, mr. heck. the chair: the gentleman from
2:55pm
-- the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. heck: i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their incredible leadership on this very difficult task. it was especially gratifying in working in such a bipartisan manner to come to the final product that we'll be voting on later tomorrow. madam chair, our nation is under attack every day, every hour, every minute. cyberattacks on our nation's networks threaten our economic and national security. that is why i rise in support of h.r. 624, the cyberintelligence sharing and protection act. whether it is hackettivists, criminals intent on stealing personal information, spies looking for intellectual property or trade secrets or nation states searching for military and security vulnerabilities, our networks are at risk. cyberlooting puts our companies at a disadvantage, threatening jobs and our private information. the same vulnerabilities used to steal intellectual and personal property are also exploited to target america's critical infrastructure, such as our electrical grids and our
2:56pm
banking and financial institutions. these cyberweaknesses makes the intelligence sharing provisions within h.r. 624 so vitally important. however, as we seek to secure and defend america's economy and the critical infrastructure, we must be -- we must ensure we protect our citizens' privacy and civil liberties. the house permanent select committee on intelligence has sought the input of and worked closely with privacy and civil liberties groups to strengthen the bill and provide necessary individual protections. these discussions resulted in a number of amendments that were adapted on a broad bipartisan basis during the committee markup. my amendment, offered with my colleague from connecticut, mr. hymes, specifically limits the private -- mr. himes, the private limits sector. this addresses the concerns that private sector companies could have used this information for marketing and other commercial purposes. another amendment requires the
2:57pm
establishment of minimumization procedures to limit the receipt, retention and use of personally identifiable information or p.i.i. in the unlikely event that p.i.i. is shared, this prevents the government from receiving and/or maintaining that information while ensuring admission of critical cyberintelligence necessary to protect our systems. yet, another amendment narrows the use by striking the provision providing the government broad authority to use this information for national security purposes. all of these bipartisan amendments will provide the private sector the necessary tools to protect its own networks while at the same time providing a critical protection for privacy and civil liberties. this legislation represents an important first step towards securing our nation's intellectual property and critical infrastructure from cyberattack and i urge my colleagues to support its passage. again, i thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership and yield back the
2:58pm
balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i now ask mr. thompson, senior member of our committee, he worked very hard on this bill. he's been with us for the last three years attempting to pass a bill that will help our country and protect us. i yield mr. thompson two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the ranking member and the chairman for their good work on this measure and -- in trying to build a better product. clearly a threat of a devastating cyberattack is real, and has been mentioned by a number of previous speakers, can't be understated. advanced cyberattacks from china and other nation state actors are stealing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cutting edge research and development from our u.s.
2:59pm
companies and even from our federal government. that's why it's essential that the business community and the federal government work together to share cyberthreat information for the purpose of protecting the american people from the fallout of cyberattacks and cyberhackers. while it's important that we protect against cybersecurity, the threat of cybersecurity, it's equally as important that we recognize the responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. and though i support h.r. 624, both for the fact that it is important that we address these issues and because i believe it needs to be moved on and we can get it in conference committee with the senate bill, i remain somewhat concerned that the bill, as drafted, could lead to the broad sharing of consumers' information which in turn could be used in ways unrelated to
3:00pm
combating cybersecurity threats. and i emphasize could. could be used. already the chair and the ranking member have accepted and we've incorporated a series of provisions in this bill that i authored that would minimize the sharing of some personal identifiable information, would limit permissible uses of information which would be shared under this bill and would insist on a number of reporting requirements that will ensure congress' ability to provide necessary oversight of this program. and take -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: do you know how much more time? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ruppersberger: i yield 30 seconds. mr. thompson: it will improve the transparency and the accountability of this bill. however, notwithstanding these
3:01pm
important changes, the bill is not perfect, but given the significance of this threat and the commitment of everyone to continue to work together, i strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, move it out of the house, let's get the thing to conference, let's get the best bill possible, get it signed into law and work together to protect the american people. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. >> i'm proud to recognize for three minutes, the gentlelady, mrs. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. let me read for our colleagues the preamble of the constitution. we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the
3:02pm
blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the constitution for the united states of america. madam speaker, great statement that is the foundation for our federal government provides us a direction that we need to our primary responsibilities. i would suggest that this legislation helps us fulfill every one of the responsibilities mandated on us by our constitution. let's just take them one by one. establish justice. it is just to protect american companies from the theft of their intellectual property by attackers and by competitors. ensure domestic tranquility. can you even imagine the threat to domestic tranquility if our power grid is successfully attacked by a foreign state like north korea and this nation is left in the dark? provide for the common defense. what is more common than our power grid, our financial system and our economy? and are we not required to
3:03pm
defend all of that? promote the general welfare. again, if our power grid is taken down, it is impossible to promote the general welfare. secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. our intellectual property, madam chair, madam speaker, made with american ingenuity, our life savings in banks, under threat from foreign actors, our jobs, our economy, all these blessings of liberty are currentry at risk if we do nothing. i've heard some suggest, madam speaker, that they have constitutional concerns about passing this bill, and i would just suggest to them that i believe strongly you should have constitutional concerns about not passing this bill. i do not believe our constitution gives foreign state actors like china or russia or north korea or iran uncontested access to the critical systems of private american companies. to the contrary, i believe that
3:04pm
our constitution requires us, the federal government, to defend them. i certainly want to applaud the great work that's been done by the chairman of the house intelligence committee, mr. rogers of michigan and certainly our ranking member, ruppersberger you two gentlemen have worked so closely together on your committee with other committees as well on this great piece of legislation and i would urge all of my colleagues, madam speaker, to join me in fulfilling our oath and voting yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from maryland is ecognized. mr. ruppersberger: i yield to the gentleman from illinois for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. plenyart: -- mr. enyart: i took a vow to protect the people of
3:05pm
southern illinois from all enemies, foreign and domestic. it was not the first time i took such an oath. by supporting cyst pa, we move to fulfill our oath. i know there are good americans who oppose this legislation because they believe the protections for civil liberties and privacy don't go far enough. but we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good this entities to vate provide information to the government. it place restrictions on the use of any data shared. it provides for strong congressional oversight. these are tremendous victories to protect our civil libberties. i support this bill because american jobs hang in the balance. every day, our companies are subject to cyberattacks seeking to steal valuable trade secret which is deprive american citizens of high-paying tech jobs. locally my hometown grocery store in southern illinois was recently hack and customers' debit and credit card
3:06pm
information was compromised, make manage of my constituents vulnerable to theft. ky not stand by and let an opportunity to prevent such actions pass me by, which is why i stand in support of this legislation. to protect the jobs of those who work to build planes at boeing in bellville or workers at actton chemicals, i must support this legislation. o ensure that those who make weapons to defend our companies at general dynamics don't lose their job because some chinese hacker has stolen proprietary information, i must support this legislation. as the weapons of warfare change and adapt, we must make the necessary adjustments to protect our nation while adhearing to our founding principles. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from maryland has 14 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from michigan has five and a half minutes remaining.
3:07pm
mr. rogers: i recognize the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pompeo: i thank chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger for their hard work over many months in bringing us to where we are today and all the committee staff that worked so hard to bring us to this point as well. i like to keep things pretty simple. if there was a sergeant from the chinese people's liberation army inside one of our power plants or one of our banks and for trying to steal stuff, trying to figure out how to get in, or how to damage our power grid, the american people would demand, demand that the government do whatever it could and they would be thrilled to learn that that company was permitted and indeed protected if it decided to share with others that potential threat to their piece of the infrastructure. that's what we're doing today. you know, the world has changed
3:08pm
just a little bit, just this last month, the last m1 tank left europe. first time we haven't had a ank in europe since d-day when we invaded on a quest to free us from nazi totalitarian domination. we fight in a different war today. we use the word cyberand sometimes folks forget what we're talking about. we're talking about nation states trying to do terrible harm to american interests, american property, and indeed to american civil liberties. in the last minute i have here, i want to talk about a couple of myths that have arisen about this piece of legislation. when i first learned about it, i, too, shared concerns about what might be happen, what might take place here. i offered an amendment that's incorporated in the bill, now belt of such amendments, and suspenders, to make sure we protect rights.
3:09pm
i've heard that cispa will take away the right to negotiate privately for things they want. i don't know how that could be. this bill is voluntary. they are not mandated to participate. i heard a second myth that this will authorize warrantless searches across the united states. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rogers: i extend 60 seconds to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 60 seconds. pll pompeo: the legislation does no such thing. it's 26 pages, i urgern to read it for themselves. it fairly clearly limits what government may do, what information the government may receive, what private companies can share with government, it limit what is government can do with that information once it's receive, it has greatly cabinned what is going on here.
3:10pm
it is to make sure that all the information about direct attacks on america are widely known, easily disseminated and available for all to help in the protection of the american state. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i yield two minutes to my good friend, mr. langevin, and i do want to say, we have been working together for years on this issue of cybersecurity, i consider him to be one of the ex-pers and one of my closest friends working on this issue. mr. langevin, two minutes, from rhode island. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. thank you, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of h.r. 624. i do thank chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger for their commitment to a bipartisan and inclusive process on a very, very
3:11pm
challenging issue. we know with certainty that cybersecurity threats that we face are real and they are increasing both in number and sophistication every day. congress may not have acted last year, but those who would use cyberspace for the nefarious purposes certainly did and they continue to steal intellectual property, identities, funds from bank accounts and sensitive security information. i know full well this is not a perfect bill, such is the nature of the legislative process but we need the authority cispa provides to allow the voluntary sharing of cybersecurity threat information. improvements, i must point out, have been made over last year's bill. several amendments have already been adopted to alleviate many privacy concerns and more may be adopted before we're done. i welcome such progress. this bill is an important step but information sharing is only one portion of the broader cybersecurity debate. i have long maintained that we must also work to ensure the
3:12pm
creation of minimum standards for critical infrastructure, the education of a strong and vibrant future cybersecurity work force and effective federal and military cyberstructure including a senate confirmed cybersecurity director with real authority including comprehensive budgetary authority. and coordination of research and development of cybersecurity across the nation. together with the president's recent executive order, i believe cispa and the bills the house approved yesterday are a very promising beginning but there is obviously much more to be done. with that, again, i want to thank chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger for their efforts, i really do commend them on a collaborative approach to an important issue. i ask my colleagues to support this important measure. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from michigan is
3:13pm
recognized. mr. rogers: i don't believe any further speakers, so i continue to reserve my time until the close. the chair: the gentleman will reserve until close. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield to ms. jan schakowsky from the great state of illinois, jan schakowsky has been a senior member of our committee, worked hard on this issue and yield her two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: thank you, madam speaker. 6 i sincerely want to thank the chair and ranking member of the intelligence committee and express my appreciations for all the efforts to work in a bipartisan manner and to address the concerns raised by me, by civil liberties groups and by the white house. however, i rise today in opposition to the bill while i strongly believe that we need to address the serious cybersecurity threat, there's no question about that, i think we can do it without compromising our civil
3:14pm
liberties. despite some positive changes, i feel this bill fails to adequately safeguard the privacy of americans. cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive and this bill fails to achieve a balance between protecting our networks and safeguarding our liberties. yesterday, i offered an amendment that would have made critical advances to our -- toward protecting privacy. my amendment would have required the companies report cyberthreat information directly to civilian agencies, maintaining the long-standing tradition that the military doesn't operate on u.s. soil or collect against -- or collect the information of american citizens. another important amendment offered by congressman schiff would have required companies to make, quote, reasonable efforts, unquote, to remove personal information before sharing cyberthreat information. unfortunately, those critical amendments were not made in
3:15pm
order. yesterday, the obama administration expressed ongoing concerns about this legislation, issuing a veto threat. i share the president's concern, despite positive changes that this bill falls short in several key ways. as written right now and hopefully there still may be some changes, cispa allows the military to directly collect personal information on american citizens, it fails to safeguard privacy of americans and grants sweeping immunity to companies for decisions made based on cyberinformation prohibiting consumers from holding companies accountable for reck less actions. i urge opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. schakowsky: i was going to conclude by saying i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, we can and should do better and i'm hopeful that we still bill do -- will do better and i yield back the balance of my time.
3:16pm
the chair: the gentlelady's time has expire. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: thank you, madam chair, i yield myself 30 seconds. i want to make very, very clear in the bill and i thank the gentlelady for working with us, she's a great person to work with, no with where does it allow the -- mr. rogers: nowhere does it allow the military collect information on private citizens of the united states. this is not a surveillance bill, it does not allow that to happen. that needs to be very, very clear in the debate, it does not allow the military to surveil private networks in the united states, period, end of story. that's the biggest part of our privacy protections and i want to thank the gentlelady for working with us, that's an inaccurate statement and i want to make it clear in the record. the chair: the gentleman from aryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman is recognized -- the gentleman has 10 minutes remaining.
3:17pm
mr. ruppersberger: i yield to sheila jackson lee two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished ranking member and the chairman as well for working to answer an enormous concern on the question of national and domestic security. since robert morris in 1988 released one of the first computer worms, we realized as the computer and the internet now have grown, the proliferation of computer malware or computer programs specifically to damage computers or their networks or steal data attracted public and media attention that we needed to do something. now more than ever, cybersecurity impacts every aspect of our lives. as a member of the homeland security committee, i can assure you that my concern about the electric grid, utilities, the energy and financial industries,
3:18pm
recognizes that it is important to act and to act with speed and understanding. likewise, i am concerned of the rage and epidemic of hackers and the impact that it has on 85% to 87% of the infrastructure in this nation. for that reason, however, i breeb that along with -- believe that along with this effort we should have a lead civilian agency to collect the data. i'm looking forward to the manager's amendment which i hope will clarify that homeland security will be that. in addition, i've offered an amendment. my amendment assures that if a cloud service provider identifies or detects an attempt by someone to access, to gain unauthorized access to nongovernmental information stored on the system it would not be required or permitted to report that attempt to the government and could not share that information with the government. and i thank the rules committee for allowing that amendment to be in. i do, however, want to raise
3:19pm
the question on privacy, and i believe that we could fix this legislation with a small addition dealing with the privacy question as we have hopefully addressed the question dealing with the lead civilian agency. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman and the ranking member and the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: i look forward to the further discussion. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield to mr. polis, two minutes, from the great state of colorado and a member of the rules committee. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman. this bill unfortunately hurts what it purports to help. it's detrimental to job growth, innovation and privacy. we talked a little bit about the process whereby a number of amendments that would have improved it were not allowed to
3:20pm
be discussed or voted on in the floor. there's still enormous flaws in this bill that needs to be addressed. as companies believe that information sharing is important, it should be with sanctity of contract. if there's something that gets in the way of information sharing we need to identify it. that hasn't been identified. clearly the answer is not to say whatever a company agrees upon with a personal user, even if it says we'll keep your information private, the minute that's agreed to by a user, the company would be completely indemnified by turning all this information, personal information, credit card information, address, to the government. why not pass along the parts related to cybersecurity? there's no incentive to do so. if there were reasonable efforts taken to delete personal data, that would a step in the right direction.
3:21pm
it is completely indemnified with regard to this matter without consent of the user themselves. what happens to this information once it reaches to the government is it? it could be shared with the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, the food and drug administration, again, the limitations are so open-ended that anything that relates even to a minor scratch or a cut issues completely unrelated to cybersecurity, things that could be related to dog bites, essentially any information. part of the problem here, there are cyberattacks everywhere. i run an e-commerce site. it's a reality every day. everything is a potential cybersecurity threat. under this bill in its pernt form, turned over to the government, shared with every agency relating to any bodily injury or harm and we don't have the opportunity to amend that. so i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
3:22pm
we can and must do better for our country. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: reserve. i now yield to ms. sewell from the great state of alabama, roll tide, she's a new member of the intelligence committee. she is smart, dynamic and she's our closer today. i yield two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. sewell: well, madam speaker, today i support -- i rise to support the bill. i can say, madam speaker, that i actually voted against the bill last term, but today i am proud to say, because of the hard work of both the chairman and the ranking member, and so many members on this committee, that today i stand before you in support of the bill. i am now a new member of the intelligence committee, and as i've told my staff, the more you know the better you can vote. and today i want to rise to explain why i am voting for
3:23pm
this bill. you know, i think that everybody agrees that there are cyberthreats each and every day. and in fact, director clapper, the director of the national intelligence, he actually said his number one thing that keeps him up at night is cyberattacks, and what this bill will do is simply to share information. it is not about releasing personal identifiable information. that is strictly prohibited by this bill. so it is strictly prohibited by this bill. and this bill has been greatly enhanced by so many of my wonderful colleagues who have submitted amendments, many of which i'm sure will pass tomorrow, as well as greatly enhanced by the amendments that were brought forth by committee members. i shared some serious concerns about some privacy protections when i came on the committee, and i am -- you know, i have to tell you that the committee was gracious enough to listen to the amendments that i offered
3:24pm
as well as other amendments that were offered by my colleagues on this side of the aisle. and i was surprised given the partisan nature of politics here on this -- in this house that the intelligence committee really tries, because of our national security, to work together. and in a true bipartisan manner, many of those privacy protections were unanimously agreed to by members of the committee. and, you know, once again, i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and i urge the president to pass it -- to also sign this bill into law. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: how much time do we have left? the chair: the gentleman has four minutes remaining. mr. ruppersberger: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman will reserve until it's time to close.
3:25pm
the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. first, we heard testimony about cyberattacks to our country. we know what's occurred already. we know our banks have been attacked, major banks. we know "new york times," "washington times" has been attacked. we know news reports that iran attacked iranco, saudi arabia's largest company, oil company. they took out 30,000 computers which means we are subjected to those attacks also. we also know that cybercommand has said we in the united states have lost from the attacks on our businesses approximately $00 billion. just think what that equates to in jobs. information about trade secrets, about competing globally with a country like china where they have all of our information, where they're able to shut down banks. this is a very serious issue. we need to do a better job to
3:26pm
educate the public how serious it is. we hope we can pass this bill today in the house, a bill in the senate and the president can sign a bill so we can protect our citizens, we can protect our businesses from these attacks. if we knew that iran was sending over an airplane with a bomb we would take it out, and yet we have to make sure that we deal with the issue in the united states of america to protect ourselves. now, there was a major issue raised and that issue was privacy. and believe me, i want to say this over and over again, you don't have security if you don't have privacy. we feel very strongly that this bill provides privacy. we also know, chairman rogers and i know if we pass a bill here, we need to pass a bill in the senate and we need the president to sign it. so we got together, even though we passed our bill in a bipartisan effort last year and it stalled in the senate, we now have made the bill we feel is a lot stronger as it deals with the perception of privacy. we've added oversight. we have four categories of oversight, privacy. we made sure that
3:27pm
minimumization, taking out any privacy information that might pass, we made sure that that is 100% minimumization so that no one's private information will pass. but the most important thing is we have to make sure that we pass a bill because of the fact 80% of our network is controlled by 10 companies in the united states of america. and all of our experts in this area have said that if government and business can share information about these ttacks, zeros and ones, they can't protect our country from these ongoing attacks that's occurring as we speak right now. let's act. let's not wait until we have another catastrophic attack like 9/11. let's deal with it now. let's pass the bill and make sure that we protect, again, our citizens and i want to say it one more time, the issue that you can't have security if you don't have privacy. i do want to also say, i want to thank all those individuals in our government and the private sector, the privacy
3:28pm
groups have all come together. this has been a good debate. it's been a debate about issues that the public needs to know. i also want to thank the chairman for his leadership and the fact he was willing, even though we had our bill pass a year ago, he was willing to deal with the issue of perception and make sure we had privacy an element that we could deal with and that we could change our bill to deal with certain perceptions. i feel we've done that. i also want to thank chairman mccaul from homeland security and chairman -- ranking member benny thompson from homeland security to work with us to get an amendment that was very important, as you heard from jan schakowsky, that amendment basically says that the point of entry for any communication is on the civil side of our government, homeland security. and we hope to pass that amendment. i feel very strongly that we do that we will have addressed a majority of the issues that's important to this bill and to our security and to our privacy.
3:29pm
i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized because the gentleman from michigan will close. mr. ruppersberger: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for the remaining two minutes. mr. rogers: thank you. i want to quickly, madam chair, address some of the moving targets on the bill. when we move to change something in the bill, the 19 privacy amendments, people decide they don't like it for whatever reason, move the chale.ewest strawman is this would somehow violate contract law. nothing in this bill allows you to avoid contract law. nothing. it's a red herring. it is not accurate. nothing in this bill would allow that to happen. the fact that someone, who was in the technical business would say this is -- hurts job growth. that's interesting. the sheer number of companies who support this from the business roundtable to the financial services business
3:30pm
group to the tech net who has companies like intel corporations, juniper, oracle, e.m.c., social media all stand up and say this is the right approach. it will allow us to protect the consumers of our products from foreign governments stealing our private information. we need to understand what this bill is and what it is not. it is not a surveillance bill. nothing in here authorizes surveillance. we are going to have an amendment to clarify that, even, to say it in the law so people can regain that confidence. we argue, read the bill. it is 27 pages. it is very clear. it is predominantly protection of your civil liberty and it allows companies to voluntarily share malicious source code, that's source code that's committing a crime against their consumers and their company, with the federal government so they can go back overseas and find the chinese or iranians or russians or the north koreans who are
3:31pm
perpetrating that crime this bill is nothing more. it does do that, thanks to the ranking member and to all who have got ton this point, i look forward to the debate on the amendments and would yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-7. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 113-41. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the
3:32pm
report, shall be considered as read, scholl shal be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divide and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report 113-41. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: i have an amendment at the kesk made in order under rule number one. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one print t.d. in house report 113-41, offered by mr. rogers of michigan. the clerk: pursuant -- the chair: pursuant to house resolution 164, the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i offer this amendment to ensure that library records, firearm sales records, medical records and
3:33pm
tax returns are not included in any information voluntarily shared with the government under cispa. through the under-- though the underlying bill would not permit this information unless it is a cyberthreat information, i bill support this amendment as it settles some members' concerns and reflects an amendment passed last year overwhelmingly. with that, madam chair, i urge this body's support of this clarification amendment and reserve the -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i rise in opposition even though i am not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i support chairman ronellers' amendment ensure the privacy. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yield back.
3:34pm
the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for what purpose. a rogers: i request recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-41. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: i have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate considering. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-41, offered by mr. connolly of
3:35pm
virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 164, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i thank the chair. madam chairwoman this amendment represents a commonsense improvement to h.r. 624 which i support, that simply narrows the scope of the authorization for the intelligence community to share classified, i stress classified, cyberthreat intelligence with private sector entities and utilities. as my colleagues are aware, the administration and some leading voices from the civil liberties and privacy rights communities have raised serious concerns with cispa as reported out of the permanent select committee on intelligence. these concerns revolve around the fact that many provision of cispa are perceived as overly vague or outright silent with respect to limiting the scope of information sharing and mitigating the risk of unintended consequences.
3:36pm
for example, section 2 of cispa, entitled cyberthreat intelligence and information sharing, is silent on what specific purposes classified threat intelligence may be used, retained, or fourth disclosed by a certified entity. as reported, section 2 only requires that the d.n.i.'s procedures governing the shiferinge classified cyberthreat intelligence between the intelligence community and cyberentity be, quote, consistent with the need to protect the national security of the united states and used in a manner which protects the cyberthreat intelligence from unauthorized disclosure. in this particular instance, i believe the concerns raised over the potential unintentional consequences from vagueness are real and valid and ought to be addressed. i also believe it's a false choice that we must somehow choose between effective cybersecurity initiatives on the one hand and preserving the
3:37pm
sacred civil liberties and privacy rights we hold so dear as a nation on the other. in many cases, defining or limiting the scope of authority would go a long way toward addressing the privacy concerns raised with respect to this legislation. to be clear, i want to recognize that the sponsors of cispa have already engaged in good faith efforts to incorporate and address outstanding concerns with respect to the legislation that were held by the administration and other stake holders and i think that needs to be recognized. on that note, i'm pleased that my amendment which was made in order represents a straightforward improvement, i hope, to cispa, that's consistent with the sponsor's stated commitment to cybersecurity, safeguarding rights and civil liberties. the amendment establishes with respect to cispa's requirements that the d.n.i. establish procedures to govern the sharing of classified cyberthreat intelligence, that
3:38pm
this classified cyberthreat intelligence may only be used, retained, or further disclosed by a certified entity for cybersecurity purposes. as noted by the aclu in its statement of support for the amendment, it's consistent with the scope of information addressed in other parts of the bill. the straightforward enhancement will be one of many needed imprusmes to the bill that will ensure its target is well defined and only strengthens our national cybersecurity. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan eek recognition? mr. rogers: while i do not oppose the amendment i ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized in opposition for five minutes. mr. rogers: i do not oppose this amendment which says that
3:39pm
classified information shared by the government with a cybersecurity entity may only be used, retained or disclosed for cybersecurity purposes. the amendment is consistent with language in the bill requiring that d.n.i., the director of national intelligence, to ensure that such classified information is carefully protect. i appreciate the gentleman's working with us and the aclu to find an amendment we could all agree onism do not oppose this further clarification and urge support of the bod dwhroif amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yields back? mr. rogers: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: i would inquire how much time is left. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has two minutes remaining. mr. connolly: i would yield one minute to the distinguished ranking member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. >> i thank you for yielding. this amendment increases the privacy and civil liberty protections in our bill and i
3:40pm
aurge yes on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. mr. connolly: madam chairwoman i would at this time yield one minute to my distinguished colleague and our friend from georgia, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. i would argue that -- i rise in support of this amendment and i would also argue that in addition to its being -- to it being vague it's also overbroad in that it includes investigations for child pornography and child objections and computer crimes this means under cispa the n.s.a. could share data with law enforcement to investigate computer crimes which is so broad and includes even lying about your age on your facebook page. are these really cyberthreats
3:41pm
that this bill claims to fix? we must defend against cyberattacks while protecting the liberties and privacy of americansism yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chair. i want to yield myself such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: it doesn't call for investigations of the crime bus only protection of the individuals that may, and i want to stress may, because the p.i.i., personal identifying information, is stripped clean, but in some rare, rare cases you may find you have located the child who has been sub jew gated to child pornography. in those cases you don't want to throw that away. there are parents begs taos find this child. it's rare, exceptional, doesn't happen often and in that case, there's no personally
3:42pm
identifiable information, it would allow for the protection, not the investigation. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: i want to thank the distinguished chairman and distinguished ranking member for their leadership and cooperation and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. che gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i yield back. the chair: yield back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. mr. rogers: madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. rogers: i ask for not only the yeas and nays but a recorded vote as well. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 prinned in
3:43pm
house report 113-41. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. schneider: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk bill designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed this house report 113-41, offered by mr. schneider of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 164, the gentleman from illinois mr. schneider, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. schneider: thank you, madam chairman. every tai, u.s. websites, databases are threatened by foreign gupes trying to hack into our networks and wreak havoc. daily we read about banks and other companies with sensitive information at risk.
3:44pm
billions of collars a year in stolen intellectual property and the ability to shut down our power system. this gives the private sector the necessary tools to protect itself and its customers against these cyberattacks. currently the cyber-- the intelligence community has the ability to detect cyberthreats but federal law prohibits the sharing of this information with the very companies whose firewalls are under attack. by sharing this information, private companies can actually prevent these attacks. the amendment i am offering makes a small clarifying change to the underlying bill, simply allowing independent contractors to be eligible for security clearance to provide the critical work of providing intelligence. this will allow companies new york particular small and medium sized businesses, without the resources to employ full-time expert, to employ the most capable individuals, coordinate with the federal government and protect ordinary americans. we cannot allow ourselves to be
3:45pm
in the situation where the federal government has available the information to prevent or mitigate a cyberattack but companies remain defenseless because there was no legal framework to share that critical information. the networks at risk power our homes, our small businesses, and allow our banking systems to function. they facilitate nearly every aspect of you are daily lives. they must be protected as best and responsibly as possible. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and final passage of this critically important bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: madam chair, while i do not oppose the amendment i ask to control the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. rogers: the amendment clarifies that independent contractors are eligible to receive security clearances to
3:46pm
handle cyberthreat intelligence and cyberthreat information under the bill, an important amendment. i appreciate the gentleman's work and effort in offering this amendment and it because the bill was not intended to exclude independent contractors, i will support this important clarification and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from milk is recognized. mr. schneider: thank you. thank you very much. i yield such time as necessary to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in opposition to the overall measure. there are three concerns that have been raised by the administration about this bill that i share. the first is that it does not include a provision requiring the private sector to make reasonable efforts to remove personal information before they share it with each other or before they share it with the government. this is a bedrock, a necessity for those that are concerned about the privacy of americans that may be implicated in this cybersharing. second, it's very important that a civilian agency, like the department of homeland security, be the main intake,
3:47pm
really the sole intake for this domestic data. there was one amendment offered in rules that tried to address this problem yesterday. yet, another form of that amendment that was ultimately adopted by rules, and yet a third form of that amendment that was adopted here this morning. none of us know exactly what it does because it has been a moving object, but it is very unclear whether this amendment will make the civilian agency, such as d.h.s., the sole intake for this domestic data. it should not be a military agency. we shouldn't have the private sector interacting with the military agency when it comes to domestic data that may involve the privacy of the american people. and finally, the immunity provisions are very broad and need to be reined in so as to encourage the private sector to take reasonable steps to make sure it does not compromise privacy interests when it is not necessary to do so to
3:48pm
protect cybersecurity. those three issues still must be addressed. i want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member for the work they have done. they have made a very good faith effort to make progress on many of these issues and in fact have made progress, but the bill still falls short and i must urge a no vote. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. schneider: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from illinois has two minutes remaining. mr. schneider: i'd like to yield to the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: our bill enables companies and the government to have the option to hire independent contractors to handle cyberthreat information. it helps bring talented people into our cybersecurity work force. it provides jobs. it is good for our economy and it is good for our national security. there are, i urge a yes vote on this amendment, and i also want to acknowledge congressman schneider for his involvement in this issue, and i now
3:49pm
reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time or -- mr. schneider: thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i would recognize myself myself. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you. i just want to address my friend from california who is a thoughtful member of the intelligence committee. this is a position that much has been debated about. should the government regulate into the private sector their use of the internet? i argue that is a dangerous place to go. they'll have to promulgate rules. they'll have to set what reasonable standards are. they'll have to determine what the private sector does on the internet, that's government and the internet. one of the things we decided to avoid in this bill was not to make that mandate. the burden to make sure that no p.i.i., personal identifiable information, is mandated in this bill and it's stripped out at the place where the burden should be, on the government.
3:50pm
and to make sure it happens we have four different layers of oversight built in just to make sure what we say they're supposed to do, according to the law, they follow the law. four levels of review. we shouldn't put the burden on the victims. we don't do it if somebody sticks a gun in your face on the street or robs the bank or robs your home. what's the difference if they're robbing your internet or stealing your blueprints that steals american jobs? the difference is none. theft is theft. let us not move to get the government into regulatinging a pects of the internet between private -- aspects of the internet between private to private. keep the government out of it. that's what we decided to do. we've come to a sensible place that protects that p.i.i., that personal identifiable information, and allows the government to stay out of regulating the internet. i thinks -- i think that's the
3:51pm
right choice. including those from the high tech industry to the manufacturing they say that's the way to go. stay out of our business. we'll share with you when we are victims of crime. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. schneider: thank you, madam chairman. i want to thank the ranking member, the chairman, for the way you approached this bipartisan effort. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i would yield my time. the chair: yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-41. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island
3:52pm
seek recognition? mr. langevin: thank you, madam chair. i rise to offer an amendment, number 35, listed as number 4, in the rule? the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-41 offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 164, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. langevin: madam chair, my amendment ensures that utility districts are not unnecessarily and unintentionally limited from protecting their own information and ultimately will lead to a broader, more effective information sharing structure leading to better cybersecurity across all infrastructure. specifically, the amendment replaces the word local, which is typically interpreted to mean city, town and county by
3:53pm
the court. such a definition i believe could potentially leave out special district that provide utility services like the saltwater river project, the central arizona project, the metropolitan water district of southern california, and other smaller special districts. my amendment, madam chair, which is supported by the american public power association, changes the bill to read political subdivision, allowing more utilities to receive the protections built into our bill. in doing so, it also makes the language consistent with the preemption provision in the bill. if not amended, this legislation could subject utility district to additional requirements if they share a threat of information effectively creating a deterrent for participation, precisely what we want to avoid. we know that a myriad of threats are against the
3:54pm
networks that run our critical infrastructure, and we must make sure that the utilities, which are the front lines in the cybersecurity fight, are properly protected. i have long advocated for minimum standards for utilities, but absence such standards, i believe that we have to make sure that as many utilities as possible have access to the best possible information and are able to share information about the attacks that they experience. this is an important bill overall. i really do want to applaud, again, chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger for their outstanding work on the underlying bill. obviously the challenges, the threats we face in cyberspace growing exponentially every day -- it seems a week doesn't go by when you hear an attack on our critical infrastructure, banking systems, corporations with intellectual property
3:55pm
theft, and obviously we have got to take action and do so now. ailure to do so would be against our responsibility. i am disappointed the bill didn't pass last year. i know how hard the chairman and the ranking member worked on this legislation. but clearly the -- our adversaries have not taken hiatus. they are actively engaged in cyberattacks or theft of intellectual property, identity theft and the list goes on and on. the underlying bill is a major step forward in protecting our cybernetworks, allowing classified information to be shared with the private sector, allowing the threat of information shared back to the government, to give awareness as well as information sharing between both in the private sector among companies. so, again, the underlying bill is a major step forward. i am pleased this amendment i'm
3:56pm
offering makes the bill even better for making sure that broader utilities are included in allowing for information sharing. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: madam chair, while i do not oppose the amendment, i ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, and i will use as much time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i want to thank the gentleman, mr. langevin, who has been a tremendous leader on cybersecurity efforts in the intelligence committee. you know, much of our work there is classified and it goes unnoticed and rightly so. i think it will be wrong for us not to commend in public your great leadership and efforts and work with us to try to make sure that this bill does it says what we want it to do, and
3:57pm
it has been a great privilege and pleasure to work with you throughout that process. and without that leadership, we wouldn't be standing on the floor today. i want to thank the gentleman for that. and i will support the amendment, which clarifies that entities located across multiple localities are intended to be covered by provisions in the bill exempting information shared under the bill from certain disclosures otherwise required of public or quasi-public entities. it replaces the term local with political subdivision. this is intended clarification, an important clarification, and i will gladly support the amendment and thank the gentleman for the work on the totality of both national security issues and cybersecurity. the chair: and with that the gentleman reserves? mr. rogers: yes, ma'am. the chair: the gentleman reserves and the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: i yield so much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the intelligence committee, mr. ruppersberger.
3:58pm
the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: thank you for yielding. first, i want to agree with our chairman. i said it before, you have been one of the key players in developing legislation to protect our country from the beginning when those of us started working on this issue, probably 2006, you were there. you have a tremendous amount of expertise. you have been a great advisor to all of us. also, not only the intelligence committee but the armed services committee. i appreciate all of your work. i also support your amendment to include political subdivision within the information use and protections required in our bill. your amendment ensures that utility districts are not unnecessarily and unintentionally limited from protecting their own information. therefore, i urge a yes on your amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from rhode island reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i would continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: thank you, madam chair.
3:59pm
before i close i just want to thank, again, both the chairman and the ranking member for their comments but more importantly their extraordinarily collaborative work in trying to protect our nation's cybersecurity and the work they did and putting this legislation together. it is a real service to the country what you have done. i am grateful to have played a part with you and thank you for your friendship. with that i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: madam chair, i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island ill be postponed.
4:00pm
the chair understands that amendment number five will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-41. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam chair, i move that the committee rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises.
4:01pm
the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 624, directs me to report that it has come o no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 624 and has had -- and has come to no esolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.
4:02pm
4:03pm
he's a very conservative senator. but even so that hasn't been much to bring republican support onto this bill. and of course expanding background checks is the center piece of president obama's gun control or gun violence agenda. it's one that democratic leaders are really pushing for because they thought it had the best chance of passing. the other pillars of obama's agenda, the renewal of the assault weapons ban, and the limit on high-capacity ammo clips, those will also receive votes today. but right from the start of the gun control debate, they were iven little chance of passing.
4:04pm
so the big hope for obama and senator schumer, a member of the democratic leadership, who called expanded background checks the sweet spot of any sort of gun control deal, that's coming to the floor today and reid does not appear to have the votes. that's why he's rolling the ice. host: a series of nine votes. who and which senators are they targeting for votes at this point? guest: unfortunately for them the pool of targets is shrinking. they were looking at the republicans who last week voted to move to the gun bill, there was a republican filibuster for gun violence legislation, and a number of republicans defected and those were the guys on the target list. they were targeted by not only
4:05pm
mafrpbl and toomey but outside groups like mayors against illegal guns and one by one they've come out against the proposal. we're talking about senators and eff flake of arizona others. dean heller of nevada was someone who was on the target list. and who just yesterday came out to say he would vote against he bill. bob corker also came out against it. that list has really shrunk on the democratic side. the targets were mary land rue of louisiana who's still looking at the bill. hidey high camp -- hide camp of new mexico who is still looking at the bim and then the two toughest democrat votes, maybe, mark pryor of arkansas who is up for re-election next year, of alaska. aggage toomey went so far as to propose exempting rural
4:06pm
residents who don't live within a convenient driving distance of a gun dealer from the expanded background checks proposal. but baggage said yesterday that that is not going to seal the deal for them, for him. >> all right. so, senator jeff flake said, because is he friends, close friends with the former congresswoman, gabrielle giffords, who was on capitol hill yesterday talking to senators, trying to persuade them to vote, and set back came when senator jeff flake posted on his facebook page that he was going to be a no vote. is there an alternative to march and toomey? some were talking about senator tomko burn's language, his amendment. guest: yes. and that is, at this point that may be the most likely alternative. of course, the language in the bill is the original schumer language which was scaled back by the proposal. what senator coburn is proposing is that, basically, gun buyers would be allowed to
4:07pm
perform a background check on themselves. they would be able to print out a receipt from the government portal and give that to the seller and the sell core use the pin number on that receipt to -- seller could use the pin number on that receipt to check and see that the background check took place. coburn's argument is that, you know, this -- the only thing we can get accomplished is some sort of change in the law that would give gun sellers the peace of mind that they're not selling to a criminal or someone with a mental problem. but gun control advocates say that the problem with this proposal is that it doesn't take into account bad actors. there's no way for law enforcement to track down people who are selling guns illegally or who aren't we are forming background checks. coburn's answer to that is, well, the a.t.f. could be performing or conducting operations to nail people who don't conduct background checks. that may be the solution.
4:08pm
host: ok. so alexander, let me ask you about this. what impact do -- does a "the washington post" editorial, this morning on john mccain, have on this debate? saying, a sane voice on guns. senator john mccain is favorably disposed, the rest of the senate should be, too. what affect does that have? what impact does this new "the washington post"-abc news poll have that shows most back new gun legislation? what's being talked about, background checks, etc., that the polls show americans are in favor of? does this have any impact on today's votes? guest: i clicked on thewashingtonpost.com, i saw there were big ads saying that 80% of law enforcement officials say that background checks will have no effect on crime and you should listen and tell your senator to listen to police, not to michael bloomberg who backed the group, mayors against illegal guns. the most important thing on that site was this ad against
4:09pm
background checks. i don't think "the washington post" editorial board is going to have a whole lot of sway in this senate debate. host: let's move on to immigration. that also a poll in today's newspaper, showing a majority of americans support immigration laws as well. where do we stand on a propose albie the gang of eight in the senate? guest: well, the legislation was released late last night, early yesterday morning. the gang of eight put out a detail, a summary detailing what they've greed to and it is -- agreed to and it's long and it's pretty complicated and it's going to take a while for groups to pour through the details. republican senators like grassley who is a pivotal figure here, he's the ranking republican on the judiciary committee, he's holding off until he takes a look at this legislation. but it is something the
4:10pm
president has praised. he says it's largely consistent with what he wants to do. and it covers -- it really runs the gamut. host: and that praise coming after he met with senators john mccain and chuck schumer, part of the so-called gang of eight. met with him at the white house yesterday. guest: yes. and this bill is certainly comprehensive. that's what the authors were looking for. it would address border security, it would put the estimated $11 million -- 11 million illegal immigrants in this country on a path to citizenship. it would set up a new point system for visas. it would create a new guest worker program, creating a so-called w-visa program for low-income -- i'm sorry, for low-skilled workers. it would have that low-skilled worker program, it would have very strict caps, which is something that labor unions wanted. it would -- the legislation would also track visas exiting the country, one of the problems with the immigration
4:11pm
system is people come here on visas, overstay their visas, nothing happens. the bill would establish a system to track who is leaving so we get a better sense of it. it would tighten security along the southwestern border. it would require a 90% effectiveness rate in terms of apprehensions in those high-risk sectors and high-risk sectors are areas where you have 30,000 people being apprehended for illegal entry each year. now, what the conservatives are saying is that this bill does not really secure the border because it does not require a fence to be built along the entire length of the border. and so i think what
4:12pm
and so i think what you're going to see in the next couple of days is -- critics really looking very closely at these border security requirements that have to be met before the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country are given provisional legal status and then given permanent legal stat s. >> we're going to show you the beginning of testimony from capitol hill today from homeland security secretary janet nal. she talked about the bombing at the boston marathon, the president's budget request for next year, and immigration legislation.
4:13pm
>> good morning. this hearing will come to order. our thanks to secretary napolitano for joining us to discuss the president's budget request to the department of homeland security for fiscal year 2014. before we start i want to take a moment on behalf of dr. coburn and my colleagues and i to offer our condolences to the victims of the tragic boston marathon terrorist attacks and to their families and i'm going to ask you, we start the hearing with a moment of silence to remember the victims and their families in our prayers. >> thank you.
4:14pm
i'll also take a moment to thank our first responders and the many, many brave bistandarders who self lsly rushed into the chaotic scene to care for those who had been injured, in some cases killed. and the law enforcement personnel who continue to nvestigate this tragedy. we're carefully monitoring the situation and we'll continue to do so the in the end we'll get to the bottom this incident and bring those responsible to justice. every american has a role in these efforts and we can do so by embracing one of the secretary's main messages and that is if you see something, say something. if you see something, say something. when we go to the airport or train station we're reminded of those words. in this case, whoever's responsible will be brought to justice. not just because of the efforts of homeland security, the f.b.i., state and local law enforcement, but because o